As discussed in Part I, the concept of metabolism is crucial for a Marxian analysis of the global ecological crisis in the Anthropocene. However, persistent criticisms are directed against those eco-Marxists who seek to develop the concept of metabolic rift. The criticisms have been reinforced recently as those political ecologists who problematize the concept of the Anthropocene as an anthropocentric and Eurocentric narrative also maintain that eco-Marxists are not only productivist but also dualist. According to critics, the dualist notions of nature’s ‘revenge’ and ‘metabolic rift’ are unable to properly grasp the historical dynamics of ecological crises caused by capitalist accumulation.

This chapter, following Marx’s ecological analysis and method, defends his ecosocialist realism in a non-Cartesian manner against monist conceptions of the world. While many critiques of the Anthropocene narrative are valid, they do not immediately justify the claim that monism is superior to dualism in conceptualizing the current ecological crisis (I). The problem of monism becomes particularly visible when investigating influential discourses in current environmental geography. Prominent critiques of Cartesian dualism of Society and Nature in the Marxist tradition come from Neil Smith’s ‘production of nature’ and Jason W. Moore’s ‘world-ecology’. Although their reconceptualization of the human–nature relationship looks quite radical at first glance, a series of theoretical difficulties in these monist approaches become discernible upon closer examination.

There are obviously significant differences between Smith and Moore. David Harvey’s critique of neo-Malthusianism in the 1970s heavily influenced Smith’s ‘production of nature’ approach. Their fear of Malthusianism, however, made them dissolve real natural limits into a social construction, so both Harvey and Smith were hesitant to recognize the necessity of integrating environmentalism into the Marxian critique of capitalism. In fact, the ‘production of nature’ approach is haunted by an illegitimate kind of anthropocentrism, which undermines nature’s independence and autonomy as non-identical with society. Consequently, they ended up underestimating the impact of the global ecological crisis under capitalism (II).

In contrast, Moore’s treatment of the ecological crisis is characterized by a determined negation of anthropocentrism. Through his monist concept of oikeios, he denounces advocates of ‘metabolic rift’ for falling into a ‘Cartesian dualism’ of Society and Nature.